1

CONFIRMATORY AND EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSES OF THE PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE

By

MICHELLE TOSTON HILL

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2011

2

© 2011 Michelle Toston Hill

3

To my husband, family, and friends

4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I‘d first like to thank God, who is the head of my life, for all of His strength, mercy,

and guidance throughout this journey. I know that without Him, I could do nothing and

with Him, all things are possible. I‘d like to thank my husband, Titus Hill II, for his love,

support, and encouragement over the many years and for always being there for me. I‘d

also like to thank my parents, my husband‘s parents, my brothers, and grandmothers for

their love, inspiring words, and consistent encouragement for me to excel. I‘d like to say

thanks and God bless to all of my family, friends, colleagues, and church family. Last,

but not least, I‘d like to thank my advisor, Dr. Patricia Ashton, for her countless hours of

helping me revise my research papers, for all of her support, and for never giving up on

me and my co-advisor, Dr. James Algina, for all of his help and invaluable knowledge.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER

1 PARENTING STYLES ............................................................................................ 10

Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................... 10 The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) .................................................... 11

Factor Analytic Studies of the PAQ .................................................................. 11

Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 13 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 14

Theoretical Significance ................................................................................... 14

Practical Significance ....................................................................................... 17 Summary ................................................................................................................ 17

2 METHOD ................................................................................................................ 19

Participants ............................................................................................................. 19

Measure .................................................................................................................. 19 The PAQ ........................................................................................................... 19 Reliability and Validity ...................................................................................... 20

Procedures ............................................................................................................. 22 Assessing Model Fit ................................................................................................ 22

3 RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 25

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 25

Statistical Analyses ................................................................................................. 25 Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) ................................................................ 25

Model fit ..................................................................................................... 25 Summary of CFA ....................................................................................... 26

Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA) .................................................................. 26

Data analyses ............................................................................................ 26 Comparisons of alternative models ............................................................ 27 Summary of EFA ........................................................................................ 33

4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 45

Discussion .............................................................................................................. 45

Limitations ............................................................................................................... 47

6

Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 49

LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 51

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................ 53

7

LIST OF TABLES

Table page 2-1 The three scales of the PAQ............................................................................... 23

3-1 CFA factor loading matrix for PAQ—Mother‘s form ............................................ 35

3-2 CFA factor loading matrix for PAQ—Father‘s form ............................................. 37

3-3 Goodness of fit indices for models—Mother‘s form ............................................ 39

3-4 Goodness of fit indices for models—Father‘s form ............................................. 39

3-5 EFA factor loadings for the three-factor model of parenting styles mother‘s form .................................................................................................................... 40

3-6 EFA factor loadings for the three-factor model of parenting styles father‘s form .................................................................................................................... 42

3-7 Geomin factor correlations for mother‘s three parenting factors ......................... 44

3-8 Geomin factor correlations for father‘s three parenting factors ........................... 44

8

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Education

CONFIRMATORY AND EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSES OF THE PARENTAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE

By

Michelle Toston Hill

August 2011

Chair: Patricia T. Ashton Major: Educational Psychology

Numerous researchers have conducted studies of the relationship of parenting

styles to students‘ academic achievement and psychological well-being. However,

findings are inconsistent due at least in part to use of different measures. Only a few

studies have been conducted on the psychometric characteristics of these instruments,

which raises questions about the reliability and validity of the data obtained with these

measures. The purpose of this study was to use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to

determine whether the widely recognized three-factor model of authoritarian,

authoritative, and permissive parenting styles was validated in a sample of 331 college

students‘ responses to the mother‘s form and 328 responses to the father‘s form of the

Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ), a 30-item self-report questionnaire consisting

of a mother‘s and father‘s form designed by Buri (1991) to measure children‘s

perceptions of the three parenting styles originally proposed by Baumrind (1971).

Results of the CFA indicated that the three-factor model of parenting did not fit the data

from these college students for either the mother‘s or father‘s form. Seven exploratory

factor analyses (EFA), ranging from one factor to seven, were then performed to

determine the number of factors needed to fit the data. Results of the EFAs suggested

9

that the three-factor model of authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting

styles provided the best interpretation of the data. Recommendations for creating more

discriminating items on the basis of the item loadings on the three factors include

omitting or revising item 24 on the mother‘s form and items 8, 14, and 24 on the father‘s

form.

10

CHAPTER 1 PARENTING STYLES

Statement of the Problem

The effective socialization of children is a key concern for parents and society. In

keeping with this concern, the role of parenting in children‘s development has been a

popular topic of research. One of the most widely studied constructs in this literature is

parenting style. Baumrind (1967) identified three styles of parenting; authoritarian,

permissive, and authoritative. The authoritarian style of parenting is highly demanding.

Children are held to high standards, and rules are made that must be followed for fear

of punishment. The permissive style is highly responsive to children‘s needs but does

not place demands on children for achieving high standards. The authoritative style is

highly demanding and highly responsive to children‘s needs. High expectations are set

for children‘s behavior in a warm and responsive context. Although Baumrind‘s

conception of the three parenting styles is conceptually compelling, inconsistencies in

the research literature raise questions about whether the measures used to assess

parenting style are adequate. One of the most widely used measures of parenting style

is Buri‘s (1991) Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ). The purpose of this study was

to determine whether a confirmatory factor analysis of college students‘ scores on the

PAQ would yield the three factors of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive

parenting that the PAQ was designed to measure. In this chapter, I describe the

construction of the PAQ and previous research on its psychometric characteristics, and

I review research that highlights the need for a measure that can be useful in resolving

important psychological issues regarding the role of parenting style in children‘s

development.

11

The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ)

Description of the PAQ. The PAQ is a 30-item self-report questionnaire designed to

measure children‘s perceptions of their parents‘ use of the authoritarian, authoritative,

and permissive parenting styles proposed by Baumrind (1971). Buri (1991) initially

included 48 items in the questionnaire, and, after individuals considered expert in the

field reviewed the measure for appropriateness, he shortened the questionnaire to 30

items, with each scale consisting of 10 items. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale

ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Participants are instructed to

respond to the items first as descriptions of their mother and then as descriptions of

their father. Sample items from the measure are ―As I was growing up my mother

seldom gave me expectations and guidelines for my behavior (permissive style), ―As I

was growing up my mother did not allow me to question any decisions she made‖

(authoritarian style), and ―As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me

in my family, but I also felt free to discuss those expectations with my mother when I felt

that they were unreasonable‖ (authoritative style).

Factor Analytic Studies of the PAQ

Several researchers have conducted factor analyses of students‘ responses to the

PAQ. Their findings suggest that characteristics of the sample may be related to the

adequacy of the measure. In the following section, I describe the factors that have been

identified in these analyses of the students‘ responses to the items on the PAQ.

Parenting styles and mental health of Palestinian-Arab adolescents in Israel

(Dwairy, 2004). Dwairy conducted exploratory factor analyses to determine whether the

authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles for mothers and fathers Buri

(1991) intended to measure with the PAQ were validated in a sample of 431

12

Palestinian-Arab adolescents from six schools (three urban and three rural). Dwairy

presented a table showing the factor loadings for the three-factor model. Factor 1

(Authoritative Parenting) consisted of 10 items with factor loadings ranging from .47 to

.73. Factor 2 (Authoritarian Parenting) consisted of 10 items with factor loadings ranging

from .40 to .66. Factor 3 (Permissive Parenting) consisted of 10 items with factor

loadings ranging from .31 to .58. However, item 3 on Buri‘s authoritarian scale cross-

loaded on Authoritarian and Permissive Parenting (loadings were -.35 and .51

respectively). Items 1 and 9 on Buri‘s permissive scale also cross-loaded on

Authoritarian and Permissive Parenting (.32 and .51 respectively for item 1 and .58 and

.31 for respectively for item 9). Dwairy gave no explanation as to the significance of

these three items having cross-loadings nor did she address what she did about those

items. Further factor analyses of the PAQ in other samples is needed to determine if

these items have similar cross-loadings in those samples. Dwairy reported that she

conducted confirmatory factor analyses to verify the three-factor model in her sample,

but she did not include the results of those analyses in the article.

Parenting style of Mexican, Mexican-American, and Caucasian-Non Hispanic

Families: Social context and cultural influences (Varela et al., 2004). The authors

conducted a confirmatory factor analysis of the responses of 150 children, ages 10 to

14, and their parents (N = 450) to the PAQ to determine whether Buri‘s three-factor

model fit the data. They found that when the items on the permissive scale of the PAQ

were removed, fit increased to NNFI =1.00 for the Mexican descent (MD) group (made

up of Mexican Immigrants and Mexican American participants combined) and NNFI =

.99 for the full sample, .98 for the Mexican group, and .97 for the Caucasian group.

13

With the permissive scale items in the analysis, the fit indices ranged from only .70 to

.88. The correlations between the Authoritative and Authoritarian scales were -. 48, -.16,

and -.33 for the Mexican, MD, and CNH samples, respectively. The authors used only

the Authoritative and Authoritarian scales of the PAQ in further analyses. However, the

small size of the ethnic subgroups and the combining of the mothers‘ and fathers‘

responses with their children raise questions about whether the need to omit the

permissive scale was the result of the unique characteristics of their sample.

Hong Kong teacher education students’ goal orientations and their

relationship to perceived parenting styles (Chan & Chan, 2007). In this study, the

authors were interested in the relationship between students‘ perceptions of their

parents‘ style of parenting and students‘ goal orientation. The authors performed a

confirmatory factor analysis of the responses of 285 teacher education students from

the University of Hong Kong to the PAQ. The goodness of fit indices were as follows:

CFI = .95, GFI = .87, Adjusted goodness of fit index, or AGFI = .83, RMSEA = .08, and

RMR = .07). The authors concluded that the three-factor model was confirmed,

consisting of Authoritarian (Cronbach‘s alpha = .84), Permissive (Cronbach‘s alpha =

.86), and Authoritative (Cronbach‘s alpha = .72) Parenting Styles.

Purpose of the Study

Buri (1991) created the PAQ to assess parental styles of authority from the

perspective of their children. The goal of this study was to determine whether the

parenting styles that Buri proposed to measure with the PAQ were verified in

confirmatory factor analyses of college students‘ responses to the items on the PAQ. I

tested the fit of the three-factor model of authoritative, permissive, and authoritarian

parenting styles to data provided by over 300 University of Florida college students. The

14

confirmatory factor analyses of their responses to the PAQ (Buri, 1991) were conducted

to enhance understanding of the adequacy of the PAQ as a measure of Baumrind‘s

(1971) three parenting styles.

Significance of the Study

Theoretical Significance

The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ) is used to assess the extent that

students perceive that their parents use the authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive

styles of parenting. This study provides researchers and educators a better

understanding of the adequacy of the PAQ. Next, I provide an example of theoretical

issues that could be clarified with a more adequate measure of the PAQ. Specifically, I

illustrate an unresolved question regarding the relationship between parenting style and

self-esteem.

Most of the studies of the relationship between parenting style and emotional well-

being using the PAQ focus on children‘s self-esteem (Buri, 1989; Buri, Louiselle,

Misukanis, & Mueller, 1988; Milevsky, Schlechter, Netter, & Keehn, 2007). For example,

in a study of 230 college students enrolled in an introductory psychology course, Buri et

al. (1988) conducted a study to clarify the relationship between parenting style and

children‘s self-esteem and found modest relationships. Student participants responded

twice to the PAQ, once with their perceptions of their mother‘s parenting behavior and

then with their perception of their father‘s parenting behavior. The students also

responded to the Tennessee Self-Concept (TSC) scale (Fitts, 1965), a 100-item scale

that measures global self-esteem. Findings revealed modest relationships. Mothers‘

authoritarian parenting was negatively related to students‘ self-esteem (r = -.26, p <

.01), whereas mothers‘ authoritative parenting was positively related to students‘ self-

15

esteem (r = .41, p < .01). Similarly, fathers‘ authoritarian parenting was negatively

related to self-esteem (r = -.18, p < .01), and fathers‘ authoritative parenting was

positively related to self-esteem (r = .38, p < .01). The researchers also found gender

differences. For girls, mothers authoritarian parenting was negatively related to self-

esteem (r = -.29, p = .01). Mothers‘ and fathers‘ authoritative parenting was positively

related to self-esteem (r = .42, p = <.01 and r = .50, p = .01 respectively). In contrast, for

boys the relationships between parenting style and self-esteem were lower (although

they were in the same direction as for girls); mother‘s authoritarian parenting and self-

esteem were negatively correlated (r = -.21, p = .05). For mothers‘ and fathers‘

authoritative parenting and self-esteem, the correlations between style and boys‘ self-

esteem were significant but lower than for girls, .36 (p < .01) and .19 (p < .05)

respectively. They found that 89% of students with both an authoritative mother and an

authoritative father had high self-esteem, and they concluded that the authoritative style

―is far more beneficial for the development of self-esteem than is authoritarianism‖ (p.

281). In contrast, 84% of students in their study with both an authoritarian mother and

an authoritarian father had low self-esteem. However, the authors‘ conclusion that the

authoritative parenting style is better than the authoritarian parenting style is not

warranted because their findings are based upon correlational research. They are

unable to make causal claims based on the data they have collected.

Buri (1989) used the PAQ to investigate differences between students‘ and

parents‘ appraisals of parenting style and to provide further information regarding the

extent that parenting style related to self-esteem. Buri asked the students to complete

the TSC, the Parental Nurturance Scale (PNS), and the PAQ. The PNS and the PAQ

16

were reworded for use with the students‘ parents and mailed to parents for their

perceptions of their nurturance and parenting styles. Buri hypothesized that mother and

father nurturance and authoritativeness would be positively related to students‘ self-

esteem and that the authoritarian style of parenting would be negatively related to

students‘ self-esteem. He also predicted that student assessments of their parents‘

behaviors would be more strongly related to their self-esteem than parents‘ appraisals

of their own behavior. The results supported his hypotheses. Mothers‘ and fathers‘

nurturance was positively related to students‘ self-esteem (r = .54, p < .01 for both

mothers and fathers), and the authoritarian style was negatively related to students‘

self-esteem (r = -.30 p < .01 for mothers and r = -.22, p < .03 for fathers). He also found

that students‘ reports of their parents‘ behaviors were significantly related to their self-

esteem (mothers‘ authoritarianism, r = -.30, p < .01; mothers‘ authoritativeness, r = .46,

p < .01; fathers‘ authoritarianism r = -.22, p < .01; fathers‘ authoritativeness r = .41, p <

.01). The only parenting styles that were significantly related to self-esteem were

mothers‘ perception of their own authoritativeness (r = .18, p < .05) and fathers‘

perception of their own authoritativeness (r = .23, p < .05). Buri also reported that the

relationship of parenting behavior to self-esteem may be moderated by parental

nurturance. That is, when he controlled for parental nurturance, parenting style

accounted for only 4% of the variance in scores on the self-esteem measure, compared

to nurturance, which accounted for 40.59% of the variance.

This study was designed to provide researchers with a better understanding of

PAQ. Investigated here was whether college students‘ scores on the PAQ are likely to

provide valid information on the authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive styles of

17

parenting. The goal was to help researchers improve their investigations of the

important parenting issues raised in the studies reviewed here.

Practical Significance

The factor analytic work conducted on college students‘ responses to the PAQ in

this study also has implications for educational practice. Considerable research has

linked parenting style to academic achievement and adolescent behavior, and many

researchers believe that the authoritative style of parenting is the most appropriate

parenting style for fostering students‘ academic achievement and social-emotional well-

being. Some studies, however, have suggested that other styles of parenting may be

more appropriate for children in some ethnic and socioeconomic groups (e.g., Chao,

1994, 2001; Garcia & Gracia, 2009; Julian, McKenry, & McKelvey, 1994; Taylor, Hinton,

& Wilson,1995). Researchers need a measure of parenting styles that yields reliable

and valid scores of parenting style to investigate these important relationships. The

factor analyses conducted in this study will give researchers a better understanding of

the factors assessed by the PAQ in a sample of college students.

Summary

Parenting styles are believed to be important influences on children‘s cognitive

and socioemotional development. However, the research on the topic is controversial

due at least in part to the use of different questionnaires to measure parenting styles.

Several researchers have conducted confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses of

students‘ responses to the items in the PAQ raising questions about the adequacy of

scores on the PAQ as a measure of the three-factor model of authoritarian,

authoritative, and permissive parenting styles. To address these questions, I conducted

a confirmatory factor analysis to determine whether the factors identified by Buri (1991)

18

were validated in a sample of college students at a large state university. Some issues

to be resolved in future research with the PAQ are the relationships between parenting

styles and students‘ self-esteem. Studies by Buri (Buri et al., 1988; Buri,1989) were

conducted to provide clarification regarding the conflicting research on the question of

whether parenting style is related to self-esteem. More research is needed, however, on

numerous important questions including (a) why students‘ perceptions of their parents‘

style were more strongly related to their self-esteem than their parents‘ perceptions of

their own parenting style and (b) given the decline in variance accounted for by

parenting style when nurturance was in the model, might other variables also reduce the

amount of variance that parenting style accounts for in self-esteem scores and other

important student outcomes, such as academic achievement and emotional and social

well-being.

19

CHAPTER 2 METHOD

Participants

The data for this study were taken from an existing dataset of 413 respondents

from the University of Florida (Ribadeneira, 2006). The participants were recruited from

a participant pool of students in the Department of Educational Psychology. Students

were also recruited from undergraduate courses in the Departments of Romance

Languages and Literature, and Health and Human Performance for a study of predictors

of career decision self-efficacy (Ribadeneira, 2006). A subset of 331 students

completed the mother‘s form of the PAQ, and a subset of 328 students completed the

father‘s form. The gender and ethnic composition in the sample were as follows: 232

female (81.98%), 51 male (18.02%); 194 were Caucasian (68.55%), 49 Hispanic

(17.31%), 12 Asian (4.24%), 18 African American (6.36%), and 10 did not identify their

ethnicity (3.53%). Student classifications were as follows: (a) sophomore (118 students,

41.70%), (b) juniors (82 students, 28.90%), (c) seniors (44 students, 15.50%), and (d)

freshman (37 students, 13.10%). A final category, other, for students who did not

identify with the previously mentioned classifications, was also included in the study (2

students, 0.71%). Ages of participants ranged from 17 to 32. This information was

obtained from Ribadeneira (2006).

Measure

The PAQ

The measure of interest was the PAQ (Buri, 1991). Students responded to 30

questions regarding their mothers‘ parenting style and then the same 30 questions

regarding their fathers‘ use of authority. Response options on the items ranged from 1

20

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). See Table 2-1 for the 10 items proposed to

load on the three scales Buri created to measure authoritarian, authoritative, and

permissive parenting styles.

Reliability and Validity

Reliability. Buri (1991) administered the PAQ to 62 college students in an

introductory psychology class at the beginning of the term and, 2 weeks later, to 61 of

those students. He reported test-retest reliabilities for the 2-week interval of scores on

the subscales as follows: .81 for mother‘s permissiveness, .86 for mother‘s

authoritarianism, .78 for mother‘s authoritativeness, .77 for father‘s permissiveness, .85

for father‘s authoritarianism, and .92 for father‘s authoritativeness. Then, for the scores

of 185 students (95 women, 90 men) from an introductory psychology course, Buri

reported internal consistency coefficients of .75 for mothers‘ permissiveness, .85 for

mother‘s authoritarianism, .82 for mother‘s authoritativeness, .74 for father‘s

authoritativeness, .87 for father‘s authoritarianism and .85 for father‘s authoritativeness.

Discriminant validity. To examine the discriminant validity of the scores on the

PAQ, Buri (1991) administered the questionnaire to 127 college students in an

introductory psychology course and found that students‘ perception of their mother‘s

authoritarianism was negatively correlated with mother‘s permissiveness (r = -.38, p <

.01) and mother‘s authoritativeness (r = -.48, p < .01), as one would expect, but the

values of the correlations were surprisingly modest especially for the relationship

between the authoritarian and permissive styles, which from a conceptual perspective

are considered opposites. Similar to the correlations for the mother‘s form,, students‘

perceptions of fathers‘ authoritarianism was negatively correlated with fathers‘

permissiveness (r = -.50, p < .01) and fathers‘ authoritativeness (r = -.52, p < .01).

21

Neither mother‘s nor father‘s permissiveness was significantly related to their

authoritativeness.

Criterion-related validity. To examine criterion-related validity, the students‘

scores on the Parental Nurturance Scale (Buri, Misukanis, & Mueller, 1988) were

correlated with their PAQ subscale scores. Buri hypothesized that if the scores on the

PAQ are a valid measure of Baumrind‘s parenting styles, then (a) the students‘

perceptions of the parents‘ authoritarian parenting would be inversely related to their

perceptions of their parents‘ nurturance, (b) authoritative parenting would be positively

related to nurturance, and (c) permissive parenting would not be related to nurturance.

His hypotheses were supported. He found that perceptions of authoritative parenting

were positively related to their perceptions‘ of parental nurturance (for mothers, r = .56,

p < .01 and, for fathers, r = .68, p < .01). Also, authoritarian parenting was negatively

related to parental nurturance (r = -.36, p < .01 for mothers and r = -.53, p < .01 for

fathers), and permissive parenting was not related to nurturance (r = .04, p > .10 for

mothers and r = .13, p < .10 for fathers), supporting his hypotheses.

Social desirability. Buri also (1991) examined whether students‘ responses to the

parenting scales might be affected by the social desirability bias. Buri recruited 69

students from an introductory psychology course to complete the PAQ and the

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). He found no

significant correlations and concluded that students‘ scores on the PAQ were not

affected by the social desirability bias; however correlations ranged from .01 for fathers‘

authoritarianism to .23 for mothers‘ permissiveness. Some of these correlations might

22

have reached significance with a larger sample. Buri did not investigate other possible

response biases that might have accounted for variance in participants‘ response.

Procedures

All participants signed consent forms. The participants completed the PAQ twice,

once to describe their mother‘s parental authority style and a second time to describe

their father‘s. The questionnaire was taken home and when completed was returned to

the principal investigator, Ms. Ribadeneira.

Assessing Model Fit

Two confirmatory factor analyses of the three-factor models of the parenting

styles, one for mother‘s parenting styles and the second for father‘s style, were

conducted using the Mplus 6.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2010) and the weighted least

squares estimator (WLSMV). I hypothesized that the three-factor model would fit the

data from the college students. Goodness of fit of the three-factor model was assessed

according to the following standards: a non-significant chi-square, CFI and TLI values

greater than .95, RMSEA less than .05, and SRMR less than .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

23

Table 2-1. The three scales of the PAQ Authoritarian 2. Even if her children didn‘t agree with her, my mother felt that it was for our own good if we were forced to conform to what she thought was right. 3. Whenever my mother told me to do something as I was growing up, she expected me to do it immediately without asking any questions. 7. As I was growing up my mother did not allow me to question any decision she had made. 9. My mother has always felt that more force should be used by parents in order to get their children to behave the way they are supposed to. 12. My mother felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is boss in the family. 16. As I was growing up my mother would get very upset if I tried to disagree with her. 18. As I was growing up my mother let me know what behavior she expected of me, and if I didn‘t meet those expectations, she punished me. 25. My mother has always felt that most problems in society would be solved if we could get parents to strictly and forcibly deal with their children when they don‘t do what they are supposed to as they are growing up. 26. As I was growing up my mother often told me exactly what she wanted me to do and how she expected me to do it. 29. As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in the family and she insisted that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for her authority. Authoritative 4. As I was growing up, once family policy had been established, my mother discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the family. 5. My mother has always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable. 8. As I was growing up my mother directed the activities and decisions of the children in the family through reasoning and discipline. 11. As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in my family, but I also felt free to discuss those expectations with my mother when I felt that they were unreasonable. 15. As the children in my family were growing up, my mother consistently gave us direction and guidance in rational and objective ways. 20. As I was growing up my mother took the children‘s opinions into consideration when making family decisions, but she would not decide for something simply because the children wanted it. 22. My mother had clear standards of behavior for the children in our home as I was growing up, but she was willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each of the individual children in the family.

24

Table 2-1. continued 23. My mother gave me direction for my behavior and activities as I was growing up and she expected me to follow her direction, but she was always willing to listen to my concerns and to discuss that direction with me. 27. As I was growing up my mother gave me clear direction for my behaviors and activities, but she was also understanding when I disagreed with her. 30. As I was growing up, if my mother made a decision in the family that hurt me, she was willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit it if she had made a mistake. Permissive 1. While I was growing up my mother felt that in a well-run home the children should have their way in the family as often as the parents do. 6. My mother has always felt that what her children need is to be free to make up their own minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what their parents might want. 10. As I was growing up my mother did not feel that I needed to obey rules and regulations of behavior simply because someone in authority had established them. 13. As I was growing up, my mother seldom gave me expectations and guidelines for my behavior. 14. Most of the time as I was growing up my mother did what the children in the family wanted when making family decisions. 17. My mother feels that most problems in society would be solved if parents would not restrict their children‘s activities, decisions, and desires as they are growing up. 19. As I was growing up my mother allowed me to decide most things for myself without a lot of direction from her. 21. My mother did not view herself as responsible for directing and guiding my behavior as I was growing up. 24. As I was growing up my mother allowed me to form my own point of view on family matters and she generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do. 28. As I was growing up my mother did not direct the behaviors, activities, and desires of the children in the family.

Note. The same questions were asked about father‘s parenting style. Items are organized by subscales from the Journal of Personality Assessment published by the Society for Personality Assessment, Copyright 1991, reproduced with permission of Taylor & Francis Informa UK, LTD - JOURNALS in the format Dissertation via Copyright Clearance Center.

25

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS

Introduction

Buri (1991) designed the PAQ to assess children‘s perceptions of their parents‘

use of the authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative parenting styles proposed by

Baumrind (1971). Baumrind described the authoritarian style as strict and highly

controlling, the permissive style as high in responsiveness to children, but low in

demands, and the authoritative style as high in responsiveness and high in demands on

children. On the PAQ, Buri (1991) measured these styles with 10 items for each style. In

this study confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to determine whether the three-

factor model provided good fit to the data from the responses of the college student

participants to Buri‘s PAQ, for the mother‘s and father‘s versions of the scale.

Statistical Analyses

Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA)

Confirmatory analyses were performed on the participants‘ responses to the items

on each of the two forms (mother‘s and father‘s) of the PAQ from data obtained from

Ribadeniera (2006). I used weighted least squares means and variance adjusted

estimation procedure (WLSMV) to test the fit of Baumrind‘s (1971) three-factor model of

parenting styles to the data. The factor loadings for the three-factor model for mothers

are presented in Table 3-1 and in Table 3-2 for fathers. Only items with factor loadings

equal to or greater than .30 were included in the factors.

Model fit

Mothers and Fathers. The fit indices for the participants‘ responses to PAQ items

referring to mothers were as follows: CFI = .78, TLI = .76, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .11

26

and χ2 (402) = 1154.65 (p < .01)). These indices were all indicative of poor model fit. The

fit indices for the three-factor model of fathers‘ parenting styles were as follows: CFI =

.78, TLI = .77, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .13 and χ2 (402) = 1187.82 (p < .01). Similar to

the results for the mothers, the fit indices for the three-factor model for fathers also

indicated poor model fit.

Summary of CFA

The CFAs of the three-factor model for mothers‘ and fathers‘ parenting styles

indicated that the three-factor model was not a good fit to the data for either mothers or

fathers. The TLI, CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR indices indicated poor model fit. Next, I

conducted exploratory factor analyses of several models using the PAQ data from

Ribadeneira‘s (2006) respondents to determine the number of factors that best fit the

data.

Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA)

Data analyses

Seven EFA models of parenting style were tested using Mplus 6.0 (Muthén &

Muthén, 1998-2010). The models were estimated using WLSMV, the same estimation

procedure used in the CFA of the three-factor model. I began with the one-factor model

and estimated seven models with the intention to estimate additional models if none of

these models provided an adequate fit. No restrictions were placed on the factors. The

analyses defaulted to GEOMIN as its oblique rotation operation, which allowed the

factors to be correlated. Factor loadings smaller than.30 in absolute value were not

considered salient and, therefore, were not used as a basis for interpreting factors.

27

Comparisons of alternative models

For the models of mother‘s‘ parenting styles, comparison of the fit indices

indicated the fit of the models improved slightly with the addition of each new factor (see

Table 3-3); however interpretability decreased as more than three factors were added to

the model. Similarly, for fathers, comparison of the fit indices indicated little

improvement beyond three factors (see Table 3-4). Also, interpretability of the factors

decreased as more than three factors were added to the model for the mother‘s and

father‘s form.

Mothers’ three-factor model of parenting styles. The factor loadings for the

mother‘s three-factor model are presented in Table 3-5. Twelve items had salient

loadings on the first factor referred to here as Mother’s Authoritarian Parenting. Of these

12 items, 10 had been on Buri‘s authoritarian parenting scale. These items had loadings

that ranged from .54 to .76, with a median of .66. Fourteen items had salient loadings

on the second factor referred to here as Mother’s Authoritative Parenting; 10 of the

items were on Buri‘s authoritative parenting scale, with loadings that ranged from .35 to

.78 and a median of .64. Eleven items had salient loadings on the third factor, Mother’s

Permissive Parenting. Ten of the items had been on Buri‘s permissive patenting scale

and had loadings that ranged from .31 to .66, with a median of .51. These results

indicate better measurement of Mother‘s Authoritarian Parenting and Mother‘s

Authoritative Parenting than of Mother‘s Permissive Parenting.

A total of seven items had cross loadings on two items; none had cross loading

on three items. Of the items intended to measure authoritarian parenting, only item 7

cross-loaded. Of the items intended to measure authoritative parenting, items 5 and 8

28

cross-loaded. Item 7 (―As I was growing up my mother did not allow me to question any

decision she had made.‖) had loadings of .58 on Mother‘s Authoritarian Parenting and

-.33 on Mother‘s Authoritative Parenting. Item 5 (―My mother has always encouraged

verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were

unreasonable.‖) had loadings of -.30 on Mother‘s Authoritarian Parenting and .62 on

Mother‘s Authoritative Parenting. This pattern of negative and positive loadings is

consistent with the conception of the two parenting styles, specifically that authoritarian

parents will not allow much less encourage children to question their decisions, whereas

authoritative parents do encourage such interactions. The fact that items 5 and 7 do not

load on Mother‘s Permissive Parenting also seems consistent with a parenting style for

which parental decision making and rules about children are largely irrelevant. Item 8

(―As I was growing up my mother directed the activities and decisions of the children in

the family through reasoning and discipline.‖) had loadings of .35 on Mother‘s

Authoritative Parenting and -.46 on Mother‘s Permissive Parenting. Thus its largest

loading was not on the factor it was intended to measure. Nevertheless, the pattern of

positive and negative loadings is consistent with the conception of the two parenting

styles. The remaining four items were intended to measure permissive parenting. Only

item 10 (―As I was growing up my mother did not feel that I needed to obey rules and

regulations of behavior simply because someone in authority had established them.‖)

cross loaded on Mother‘s Authoritarian Parenting and Mother‘s Permissive Parenting,

with loadings of -.30 and .31, respectively. The pattern of loadings is again consistent

with the conception of the two parenting styles. Items 21, 24, and 28 had salient

loadings on Mother‘s Authoritative Parenting and Mother‘s Permissive Parenting. Item

29

24 (―As I was growing up my mother allowed me to form my own point of view on family

matters and she generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do.‖) had

positive loadings on Mother‘s Authoritative Parenting (.45) and on Mother‘s Permissive

Parenting (.61). It is not clear whether item 24 is a description of authoritative or

permissive parenting and this may account for the pattern of results. It is interesting that

item 24 did not load negatively on Mother‘s Authoritarian Parenting because one might

expect children of authoritarian parenting not to endorse this item. Items 21 and 28 had

positive loadings on Mother‘s Permissive Parenting and negative loadings on Mother‘s

Authoritative Parenting. For item 21 (―My mother did not view herself as responsible for

directing and guiding my behavior as I was growing up.‖), the loadings were .44 and

-.47 respectively and for item 28 (―As I was growing up my mother did not direct the

behaviors, activities, and desires of the children in the family.‖) the loadings were .55

and -.35.The pattern of loadings is consistent with the conception of permissive and

authoritative parenting, but again it is interesting that the items did not load negatively

on Mother‘s Authoritarian Parenting.

Fathers’ three-factor model of parenting style. The factor loadings for the

father‘s three-factor model are presented in Table 3-6. Eleven items had salient

loadings on the first factor referred to here as Father’s Authoritarian Parenting. Of these

11 items, 10 had been on Buri‘s authoritarian parenting scale. These items had loadings

that ranged from .45 to .85, with a median of .68. Eighteen items had salient loadings on

the second factor referred to here as Father’s Authoritative Parenting; 10 of the items

were on Buri‘s authoritative parenting scale, with loadings that ranged from .31 to .82

and a median of .66. Nine items had salient loadings on the third factor, Father’s

30

Permissive Parenting. Item 1 did not load on the Permissive factor as it was proposed

to in the Buri scale. The items had loadings that ranged from .43 to .65, with a median

of .57. These results also indicate better measurement of Father‘s Authoritarian

Parenting and Father‘s Authoritative Parenting than of Father‘s Permissive Parenting

(similar to mother‘s parenting scales).

A total of 8 items had cross loadings on two items; none had cross loading on

three items. Of the items intended to measure authoritarian parenting, three items

cross-loaded (7, 8, and 16). Of the items intended to measure authoritative parenting,

eight items cross-loaded (7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 21, 24, and 28). Item 7 (―As I was growing up

my father did not allow me to question any decision he had made.‖) and item 16 (―As I

was growing up my father would get very upset if I tried to disagree with him‖) loaded on

Father‘s Authoritarian Parenting (.68 and .45, respectively) and on Father‘s Authoritative

Parenting (-.33 and -.32, respectively). Item 21 cross-loaded on Father‘s Permissive

Parenting with a factor loading of.65 and a negative loading of -.36 on Father‘s

Authoritative Parenting, reflecting the negative relationship of the two items with regard

to the issue of the father‘s responsibility for guiding his child‘s behavior. Item 28 cross-

loaded on Father‘s Authoritative Parenting with a factor loading of -.33 and a factor

loading of .60 on Father‘s Permissive Parenting, reflecting the negative relationship of

the two items regarding the father‘s responsibility for directing his children‘s activities.

Two items, 14 (―Most of the time as I was growing up my father did what the children in

the family wanted when making family decisions‖) and 24 (― As I was growing up my

father allowed me to form my own point of view on family matters and he generally

allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do‖) cross-loaded on Father‘s

31

Authoritative Parenting (.31 and .45, respectively) and Father‘s Permissive Parenting (.

43 and .46, respectively). The positive loadings suggest that these items fail to

adequately discriminate between Father‘s Authoritative Parenting and Father‘s

Permissive Parenting and therefore should be revised to better discriminate between

the factors and therefore should be revised or omitted from the measure. Items 13, 21,

and 28 concern setting guidelines for behavior. Items 14 and 24 concern granting

autonomy to the child in how the family spent their time. Item 8 (―As I was growing up

my father directed the activities and decisions of the children in the family through

reasoning and discipline.‖) had loadings of .46 on Father‘s Authoritarian Parenting and

.45 on Father‘s Authoritative Parenting. Thus its largest positive loading was not on the

factor it was intended to measure. No items cross-loaded on father‘s authoritarian or

permissive parenting. However, five items cross-loaded on the permissive and

authoritative factors (as discussed above, items 13, 14, 21, 24, and 28), which is again

consistent with the conception of the two parenting styles.

Analysis of correlation tables. Correlation tables for the three-factor models of

parenting style for mother and fathers are presented in Tables 3-7 and 3-8, respectively.

For both mother‘s and father‘s three-factor models, Authoritarian Parenting and

Permissive Parenting were significantly negatively correlated. The higher students score

on Authoritarian Parenting, the lower their score is likely to be on Permissive Parenting.

However, one might wonder why the correlation is not higher in that the conception of

those two styles are in opposition and the items seem to reflect that difference.

Consider, for example, item 2 that loads on Authoritarian Parenting for both parents:

―Even if the children didn‘t agree with her, my mother felt that it was for our own good if

32

we were forced to conform to what she thought was right,‖ and item 19 on Permissive

Parenting: ―As I was growing up my father allowed me to decide most things for myself

without a lot of direction from him.‖

The strength of the negative relationship appeared also to be related to whether

the question required participants to think about their parents‘ observable behaviors or

make an inference about their parent‘s authority. For example, for mothers, item 1—a

permissive item (―While I was growing up my mother felt that in a well-run home the

children should have their way in the family as often as the parents do‖) and item 2—an

authoritarian item (―Even if her children didn‘t agree with her, my mother felt it was for

our own good if we were forced to conform to what she thought was right‖) had a -.21

relationship, while items 5—an authoritative item (―My mother has always encouraged

verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were

unreasonable‖) and 7—an authoritarian item (―As I was growing up my mother did not

allow me to question any decision she had made‖) had a -.50 relationship. For fathers

item1 (―While I was growing up my father felt that in a well-run home the children should

have their way in the family as often as the parents do‖) and 2 (―Even if his children

didn‘t agree with him, my father felt it was for our own good if we were forced to conform

to what she thought was right‖) have only a -.19 correlation. By contrast, items 7—an

authoritarian item (―As I was growing up my father did not allow me to question any

decision he had made‖) and 27—an authoritative item (―As I was growing up my father

gave me clear direction for my behaviors and activities, but he was also understanding

when I disagreed with him‖), which concern observable behaviors, have a -.36

correlation coefficients. Thus there is not a tendency for the items associated with

33

inferring how the parent ‗felt‘ to be seen as polar opposites. Questions that require

participants to make inference about parents‘ beliefs about parenting behavior should

be separated from those that require participants to report on parenting behavior in

analyses to determine whether items pairs that assess behavior have consistently

higher negative correlations.

Summary of EFA

Of the seven models, the three-factor model of parenting styles provided the most

interpretable results for both the mother‘s and father‘s forms of the PAQ. For mothers‘

parenting style, the three-factor model had adequate fit, although three items on

Mother‘s Permissive Parenting had loadings ranging from .31 to .35. Item 24 positively

cross-loaded on two factors in the model, suggesting that the item does not clearly

discriminate between the two factors and should be omitted or revised to better reflect

differences in the two parenting styles.

For father‘s parenting style, the three-factor model also had good fit. The father‘s

three-factor model included two items (8, and 24) that positively cross-loaded on two

factors, indicating that the items did not clearly discriminate between the two factors and

should be omitted or revised to better differentiate between the two factors.

In conclusion, exploratory factor analyses of seven models, ranging from one

factor to seven, showed that the fit of the data to the models increased slightly with the

addition of each factor beyond three; however the interpretation of these factors is

unclear. On the basis of Baumrind‘s original conception of the three types of parenting

styles, the 3-factors are labeled Authoritarian, Authoritative, and Permissive Parenting.

From the factor loadings table (Table 3-5 for mother‘s form) the items that had a salient

loading on each factor and did not have a salient loading on a second factor are (a)

34

Mother‘s Authoritarian Parenting: items 2, 3, 9, 12, 16, 18, 25, 26, and 29; (b) Mother‘s

Authoritative Parenting: items 4, 11, 15, 20, 22, 23, 27, and 30; (c) Mother‘s Permissive

Parenting: items 1, 6, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 28. From the factor loadings for father‘s form

(Table 3-6) the items loading on each factor are (a) Father‘s Authoritarian Parenting:

items 2, 3, 9, 12, 18, 25, 26, and 29; (b) Father‘s Authoritative Parenting: items 1, 4, 5,

7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, and 30; and (c) Father‘s Permissive

Parenting: items 6, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24, and 28. Buri‘s placements of items on the

subscales of his instrument are consistent with the loadings in the 3-factor EFA model

for mothers and fathers. In addition, most of the cross loadings are consistent with the

theory underlying the development of the instrument.

35

Table 3-1. CFA factor loading matrix for PAQ—Mother‘s form Factor Loadings for Mothers Item 1 2 3 M SD

Authoritarian 2. Even if her children didn‘t agree with her, my mother

felt that it was for our own good if we were forced to conform to what she thought was right.

.81 (.07)

— — 2.79 1.26

3. Whenever my mother told me to do something as I was growing up, she expected me to do it immediately without asking any questions.

.76 (.06)

— — 3.32 1.18

7. As I was growing up my mother did not allow me to question any decision she had made.

.66 (.06)

— — 2.30 1.09

9. My mother has always felt that more force should be used by parents in order to get their children to behave the way they are supposed to.

.87 (.07)

— — 2.66 1.27

12. My mother felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is boss in the family.

.73 (.06)

— — 2.98 1.14

16. As I was growing up my mother would get very upset if I tried to disagree with her.

.61 (.06)

— — 2.65 1.11

18. As I was growing up my mother let me know what behavior she expected of me, and if I didn‘t meet those expectations, she punished me.

.68 (.07)

— — 3.12 1.21

25. My mother has always felt that most problems in society would be solved if we could get parents to strictly and forcibly deal with their children when they don‘t do what they are supposed to as they are growing up.

.74 (.06)

— — 2.89 1.15

26. As I was growing up my mother often told me exactly what she wanted me to do and how she expected me to do it.

.68 (.06)

— — 2.97 1.14

29. As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in the family and she insisted that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for her authority.

.82 (.06)

— — 2.89 1.21

Authoritative 4. As I was growing up, once family policy had been

established, my mother discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the family.

— .72 (.06)

— 3.53 1.08

5. My mother has always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable.

— .73 (.06)

— 3.41 1.12

8. As I was growing up my mother directed the activities and decisions of the children in the family through reasoning and discipline.

— .30 (.06)

— 3.53 1.03

11. As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in my family, but I also felt free to discuss those expectations with my mother when I felt that they were unreasonable.

— .81 (.05)

— 3.83 1.09

15. As the children in my family were growing up, my mother consistently gave us direction and guidance in rational and objective ways.

— .61 (.05)

— 3.94 0.90

36

Table 3-1. continued Factor Loadings for Mothers Item 1 2 3 M SD

20. As I was growing up my mother took the children‘s opinions into consideration when making family decisions, but she would not decide for something simply because the children wanted it.

— .60 (.06)

— 3.75 1.06

22. My mother had clear standards of behavior for the children in our home as I was growing up, but she was willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each of the individual children in the family.

— .66 (.05)

— 3.64 1.05

23. My mother gave me direction for my behavior and activities as I was growing up and she expected me to follow her direction, but she was always willing to listen to my concerns and to discuss that direction with me.

— .77 (.05)

— 3.87 1.01

27. As I was growing up my mother gave me clear direction for my behaviors and activities, but she was also understanding when I disagreed with her.

— .63 (.05)

— 3.54 0.96

30. As I was growing up, if my mother made a decision in the family that hurt me, she was willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit it if she had made a mistake.

— .75 (.05)

— 3.68 1.08

Permissive 1. While I was growing up my mother felt that in a well-

run home the children should have their way in the family as often as the parents do.

— — .53 (.07)

2.56 1.19

6. My mother has always felt that what her children need is to be free to make up their own minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what their parents might want.

— — .76 (.07)

2.50 1.14

10. As I was growing up my mother did not feel that I needed to obey rules and regulations of behavior simply because someone in authority had established them.

— — .51 (.07)

2.21 1.11

13. As I was growing up, my mother seldom gave me expectations and guidelines for my behavior.

— — .46 (.07)

1.97 1.06

14. Most of the time as I was growing up my mother did what the children in the family wanted when making family decisions.

— — .44 (.07)

2.69 1.08

17. My mother feels that most problems in society would be solved if parents would not restrict their children‘s activities, decisions, and desires as they are growing up.

— — .35 (.07)

2.45 1.05

19. As I was growing up my mother allowed me to decide most things for myself without a lot of direction from her.

— — .62 (.07)

2.92 1.11

21. My mother did not view herself as responsible for directing and guiding my behavior as I was growing up.

— — .37 (.07)

1.90 1.06

24. As I was growing up my mother allowed me to form my own point of view on family matters and she generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do.

— — .52 (.07)

3.28 1.10

28. As I was growing up my mother did not direct the behaviors, activities, and desires of the children in the family.

— — .49 (.06)

2.19 0.98

Note. Values in parenthesis are standard errors.

37

Table 3-2. CFA factor loading matrix for PAQ—Father‘s form Factor Loadings for Fathers Item 1 2 3 M SD

Authoritarian 2. Even if his children didn‘t agree with him, my father felt that it was

for our own good if we were forced to conform to what he thought was right.

.79 (.07)

— — 3.08 1.26

3. Whenever my father told me to do something as I was growing up, he expected me to do it immediately without asking any questions.

.73 (.06)

— — 3.43 1.19

7. As I was growing up my father did not allow me to question any decision he had made.

.82 (.06)

— — 2.41 1.17

9. My father has always felt that more force should be used by parents in order to get their children to behave the way they are supposed to.

.88 (.06)

— — 2.69 1.22

12. My father felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is boss in the family.

.83 (.06)

— — 3.00 1.13

16. As I was growing up my father would get very upset if I tried to disagree with him.

.67 (.06)

— — 2.76 1.19

18. As I was growing up my father let me know what behavior he expected of me, and if I didn‘t meet those expectations, he punished me.

.74 (.07)

— — 3.18 1.23

25. My father has always felt that most problems in society would be solved if we could get parents to strictly and forcibly deal with their children when they don‘t do what they are supposed to as they are growing up.

.71 (.06)

— — 3.10 1.14

26. As I was growing up my father often told me exactly what he wanted me to do and how he expected me to do it.

.73 (.06)

— — 2.89 1.14

29. As I was growing up I knew what my father expected of me in the family and he insisted that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for her authority.

.77 (.06)

— — 2.93 1.21

Authoritative 4. As I was growing up, once family policy had been established, my

father discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the family.

— .73 (.06)

— 3.10 1.19

5. My father has always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable.

— .81 (.06)

— 3.00 1.23

8. As I was growing up my father directed the activities and decisions of the children in the family through reasoning and discipline.

— .33 (.06)

— 3.15 1.09

11. As I was growing up I knew what my father expected of me in my family, but I also felt free to discuss those expectations with my father when I felt that they were unreasonable.

— .91 (.06)

— 3.56 1.20

15. As the children in my family were growing up, my father consistently gave us direction and guidance in rational and objective ways.

— .83 (.05)

— 3.62 1.11

20. As I was growing up my father took the children‘s opinions into consideration when making family decisions, but he would not decide for something simply because the children wanted it.

— .70 (.06)

— 3.65 1.10

22. My father had clear standards of behavior for the children in our home as I was growing up, but he was willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each of the individual children in the family.

— .66 (.06)

— 3.34 1.13

38

Table 3-2. continued Factor Loadings for Fathers Item 1 2 3 M SD

23. My father gave me direction for my behavior and activities as I was growing up and he expected me to follow his direction, but he was always willing to listen to my concerns and to discuss that direction with me.

— .84 (.06)

— 3.52 1.17

27. As I was growing up my father gave me clear direction for my behaviors and activities, but he was also understanding when I disagreed with him.

— .79 (.05)

— 3.27 1.07

30. As I was growing up, if my father made a decision in the family that hurt me, he was willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit it if he had made a mistake.

— .81 (.06)

— 3.29 1.21

Permissive 1. While I was growing up my father felt that in a well-run home the

children should have their way in the family as often as the parents do.

— — .15 (.07)

2.27 1.14

6. My father has always felt that what his children need is to be free to make up their own minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what their parents might want.

— — .47 (.07)

1.18 1.18

10. As I was growing up my father did not feel that I needed to obey rules and regulations of behavior simply because someone in authority had established them.

— — .47 (.06)

1.91 0.95

13. As I was growing up, my father seldom gave me expectations and guidelines for my behavior.

— — .67 (.06)

2.09 1.11

14. Most of the time as I was growing up my father did what the children in the family wanted when making family decisions.

— — .32 (.06)

2.70 1.03

17. My father feels that most problems in society would be solved if parents would not restrict their children‘s activities, decisions, and desires as they are growing up.

— — .31 (.07)

2.39 1.04

19. As I was growing up my father allowed me to decide most things for myself without a lot of direction from him.

— — .54 (.06)

2.92 1.06

21. My father did not view himself as responsible for directing and guiding my behavior as I was growing up.

— — .77 (.06)

2.15 1.13

24. As I was growing up my father allowed me to form my own point of view on family matters and he generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do.

— — .29 (.07)

3.07 1.09

28. As I was growing up my father did not direct the behaviors, activities, and desires of the children in the family.

— — .78 (.06)

2.43 1.12

Note. Values in parenthesis are standard errors.

39

Table 3-3. Goodness of fit indices for models—Mother‘s form

# of Factors

χ

2

df (p)

CFI

TLI

SRMR

RMSEA

1 3501.44 405 (.00) .48 .44 .17 .15

2 1019.30 376 (.00) .89 .88 .06 .07

3 634.86 348 (.00) .95 .94 .04 .05

4 544.13 321 (.00) .96 .95 .04 .05

5 462.06 295 (.00) .97 .96 .03 .04

6 409.21 270 (.00) .98 .96 .03 .04

7 359.77 246 (.00) .98 .97 .03 .04

Note. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker Lewis Index; SRMR = Standard Root Mean Square Residual; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

Table 3-4. Goodness of fit indices for models—Father‘s form

# of factors

χ2

df (p)

CFI

TLI

SRMR

RMSEA

1 3712.33 405 (.00) .47 .43 .18 .16

2 921.48 376 (.00) .91 .90 .06 .07

3 571.54 348 (.00) .96 .96 .04 .04

4 489.97 321 (.00) .97 .96 .03 .04

5 415.73 295 (.00) .98 .97 .03 .04

6 367.33 270 (.00) .98 .98 .03 .03

7 319.83 246 (.01) .99 .99 .02 .03

Note. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker Lewis Index; SRMR = Standard Root Mean Square Residual; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

40

Table 3-5. EFA factor loadings for the three-factor model of parenting styles mother‘s form

Geomin Factor Loading for Mothers AR AT P

Item 1 2 3

1. While I was growing up my mother felt that in a well-run home the children should have their way in the family as often as the parents do.

-.22 (.06)

.13 (.07)

.33* (.06)

2. Even if her children didn‘t agree with her, my mother felt that it was for our own good if we were forced to conform to what she thought was right.

.70* (.04)

.06 (.07)

-.04 (.06)

3. Whenever my mother told me to do something as I was growing up, she expected me to do it immediately without asking any questions.

.76* (.04)

.11 (.08)

.04 (.06)

4. As I was growing up, once family policy had been established, my mother discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the family.

-.10 (.05)

.64* (.03)

-.01 (.04)

5. My mother has always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable.

-.30** (.05)

.62* (.04)

.14 (.06)

6. My mother has always felt that what her children need is to be free to make up their own minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what their parents might want.

-.19 (.06)

.03 (.07)

.59* (.05)

7. As I was growing up my mother did not allow me to question any decision she had made.

.58* (.04)

-.34** (.06)

-.01 (.02)

8. As I was growing up my mother directed the activities and decisions of the children in the family through reasoning and discipline.

.13 (.06)

.35* (.08)

-.46** (.06)

9. My mother has always felt that more force should be used by parents in order to get their children to behave the way they are supposed to.

.67* (.05)

-.13 (.06)

-.04 (.06)

10. As I was growing up my mother did not feel that I needed to obey rules and regulations of behavior simply because someone in authority had established them.

-.30** (.06)

-.15 (.06)

.31* (.06)

11. As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in my family, but I also felt free to discuss those expectations with my mother when I felt that they were unreasonable.

-.13 (.05)

.78* (.03)

.12 (.07)

12. My mother felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is boss in the family.

.68* (.05)

-.04 (.07)

.05 (.07)

13. As I was growing up, my mother seldom gave me expectations and guidelines for my behavior.

.12 (.06)

-.26 (.10)

.60* (.06)

14. Most of the time as I was growing up my mother did what the children in the family wanted when making family decisions.

.05 (.06)

.17 (.08)

.47* (.05)

15. As the children in my family were growing up, my mother consistently gave us direction and guidance in rational and objective ways.

.00 (.03)

.74* (.05)

-.21 (.06)

16. As I was growing up my mother would get very upset if I tried to disagree with her.

.59* (.05)

-.23 (.07)

.12 (.05)

17. My mother feels that most problems in society would be solved if parents would not restrict their children‘s activities, decisions, and desires as they are growing up.

.01 (.06)

-.06 (.07)

.35* (.06)

41

Table 3-5. continued Geomin Factor Loading for Mothers AR AT P

Item 1 2 3

18. As I was growing up my mother let me know what behavior she expected of me, and if I didn‘t meet those expectations, she punished me.

.59* (.05)

.17 (.06)

-.17 (.06)

19. As I was growing up my mother allowed me to decide most things for myself without a lot of direction from her.

.01 (.05)

.14 (.09)

.66* (.04)

20. As I was growing up my mother took the children‘s opinions into consideration when making family decisions, but she would not decide for something simply because the children wanted it.

-.03 (.05)

.61* (.05)

-.13 (.07)

21. My mother did not view herself as responsible for directing and guiding my behavior as I was growing up.

-.01 (.04)

-.47** (.07)

.44* (.07)

22. My mother had clear standards of behavior for the children in our home as I was growing up, but she was willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each of the individual children in the family.

-.09 (.05)

.66* (.04)

.03 (.06)

23. My mother gave me direction for my behavior and activities as I was growing up and she expected me to follow her direction, but she was always willing to listen to my concerns and to discuss that direction with me.

.01 (.05)

.83* (.03)

-.09 (.06)

24. As I was growing up my mother allowed me to form my own point of view on family matters and she generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do.

.01 (.02)

.45** (.09)

.61* (.04)

25. My mother has always felt that most problems in society would be solved if we could get parents to strictly and forcibly deal with their children when they don‘t do what they are supposed to as they are growing up.

.64* (.04)

-.03 (.05)

-.10 (.06)

26. As I was growing up my mother often told me exactly what she wanted me to do and how she expected me to do it.

.54* (.05)

.03 (.04)

-.19 (.06)

27. As I was growing up my mother gave me clear direction for my behaviors and activities, but she was also understanding when I disagreed with her.

-23 (.05)

.61* (.04)

.00 (.03)

28. As I was growing up my mother did not direct the behaviors, activities, and desires of the children in the family.

-.06 (.06)

-.35** (.09)

.55* (.06)

29. As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in the family and she insisted that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for her authority.

.70* (.04)

-.05 (.07)

.01 (.05)

30. As I was growing up, if my mother made a decision in the family that hurt me, she was willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit it if she had made a mistake.

-.23 (.05)

.63* (.04)

-.07 (.06)

Note. Factors: AR = Authoritarian, AT = Authoritative, P = Permissive. * indicates items with factor loadings ≥ .30. ** indicates items loading on more than one factor.

42

Table 3-6. EFA factor loadings for the three-factor model of parenting styles father‘s form

Geomin Factor Loading for Fathers AR AT P

Item 1 2 3

1. While I was growing up my father felt that in a well-run home the children should have their way in the family as often as the parents do.

-.21 (.08)

.33* (.05)

.17 (.08)

2. Even if his children didn‘t agree with him, my father felt that it was for our own good if we were forced to conform to what he thought was right.

.64* (.06)

.00 (.04)

-.02 (.07)

3. Whenever my father told me to do something as I was growing up, he expected me to do it immediately without asking any questions.

.72* (.05)

.11 (.05)

.05 (.06)

4. As I was growing up, once family policy had been established, my father discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the family.

-.05 (.06)

.67* (.04)

.05 (.09)

5. My father has always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable.

-.22 (.05)

.66* (.04)

.15 (.09)

6. My father has always felt that what his children need is to be free to make up their own minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what their parents might want.

.00 (.05)

.28 (.07)

.57* (.06)

7. As I was growing up my father did not allow me to question any decision he had made.

.68* (.05)

-.33** (.04)

.05 (.07)

8. As I was growing up my father directed the activities and decisions of the children in the family through reasoning and discipline.

.46* (.07)

.45** (.05)

-.11 (.09)

9. My father has always felt that more force should be used by parents in order to get their children to behave the way they are supposed to.

.85* (.05)

-.02 (.04)

.15 (.07)

10. As I was growing up my father did not feel that I needed to obey rules and regulations of behavior simply because someone in authority had established them.

.08 (.08)

-.01 (.04)

.64* (.07)

11. As I was growing up I knew what my father expected of me in my family, but I also felt free to discuss those expectations with my father when I felt that they were unreasonable.

.00 (.04)

.82* (.03)

.17 (.10)

12. My father felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is boss in the family.

.74* (.06)

.00 (.03)

-.06 (.07)

13. As I was growing up, my father seldom gave me expectations and guidelines for my behavior

.08 (.09)

-.30** (.09)

.63* (.08)

14. Most of the time as I was growing up my father did what the children in the family wanted when making family decisions.

-.02 (.07)

.31** (.06)

.43* (.07)

15. As the children in my family were growing up, my father consistently gave us direction and guidance in rational and objective ways.

.04 (.05)

.79* (.04)

-.12 (.10)

16. As I was growing up my father would get very upset if I tried to disagree with him.

.45* (.07)

-.32** (.05)

-.06 (.08)

17. My father feels that most problems in society would be solved if parents would not restrict their children‘s activities, decisions, and desires as they are growing up.

.10 (.07)

.16 (.07)

.50* (.07)

18. As I was growing up my father let me know what behavior he expected of me, and if I didn‘t meet those expectations, he punished me.

.69* (.06)

.23 (.05)

-.07 (.08)

19. As I was growing up my father allowed me to decide most things for myself without a lot of direction from him.

-.01 (.07)

.06 (.08)

.57* (.07)

43

Table 3-6. continued

Geomin Factor Loading for Fathers AR AT P

Item 1 2 3

20. As I was growing up my father took the children‘s opinions into consideration when making family decisions, but she would not decide for something simply because the children wanted it.

-.08 (.06)

.64* (.04)

-.06 (.09)

21. My father did not view himself as responsible for directing and guiding my behavior as I was growing up.

-.03 (.06)

-.36** (.08)

.65* (.07)

22. My father had clear standards of behavior for the children in our home as I was growing up, but he was willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each of the individual children in the family.

-.07 (.07)

.59* (.04)

-.08 (.09)

23. My father gave me direction for my behavior and activities as I was growing up and he expected me to follow his direction, but he was always willing to listen to my concerns and to discuss that direction with me.

-.02 (.04)

.76* (.03)

-.13 (.100

24. As I was growing up my father allowed me to form my own point of view on family matters and he generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do.

-.01 (.05)

.45** (.06)

.46* (.07)

25. My father has always felt that most problems in society would be solved if we could get parents to strictly and forcibly deal with their children when they don‘t do what they are supposed to as they are growing up.

.60* (.06)

.00 (.03)

-.10 (.06)

26. As I was growing up my father often told me exactly what she wanted me to do and how he expected me to do it.

.75* (.04)

.20 (.05)

-.01 (.02)

27. As I was growing up my father gave me clear direction for my behaviors and activities, but he was also understanding when I disagreed with him.

.09 (.06)

.79* (.03)

.17 (.10)

28. As I was growing up my father did not direct the behaviors, activities, and desires of the children in the family.

-.07 (.07)

-.33** (.07)

.60* (.07)

29. As I was growing up I knew what my father expected of me in the family and he insisted that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for his authority.

.66* (.05)

-.07 (.04)

.01 (.05)

30. As I was growing up, if my father made a decision in the family that hurt me, he was willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit it if he had made a mistake.

-.11 (.06)

.67* (.04)

.01 (.04)

Note. Factors: AR = Authoritarian, AT = Authoritative, P = Permissive. * indicates items with factor loadings ≥ .30. ** indicates items loading on more than one factor.

44

Table 3-7. Geomin factor correlations for mother‘s three parenting factors Factor 1 2 3

1. Authoritarian 1.00 — —

2. Authoritative -.20 1.00 —

3. Permissive -.41* -.08 1.00

Note. N = 331 for mother‘s form and 328 for father‘s form. *p < .01.

Table 3-8. Geomin factor correlations for father‘s three parenting factors

Factor 1 2 3

1. Authoritarian 1.00 — —

2. Authoritative -.23 1.00 —

3. Permissive -.57* -.12 1.00

Note. N = 331 for mother‘s form and 328 for father‘s form. *p < .01.

45

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Discussion

This study consisted of confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses of the

responses of 331 college students to the mother‘s form of the PAQ and 328 college

students‘ responses to the father‘s form of the PAQ. I hypothesized that the

confirmatory factor analyses would support the 3-factor model Baumrind (1971)

proposed and Buri (1991) used to create the PAQ, a 30-item, self-report measure with

three subscales designed to assess parents‘ authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive

parenting styles. The confirmatory factor analysis showed that the three-factor model

did not provide adequate fit to the data for either the mother‘s or father‘s form of the

PAQ. From exploratory factor analyses of models ranging from one to seven factors I

concluded that although the fit of the mother‘s and father‘s models to the data increased

slightly for factors four through seven, the three-factor model had the most clearly

interpretable factors for both mothers and fathers. In this chapter I discuss implications

of the results of these analyses and limitations and recommendations of this study for

future research.

Inconsistent findings of confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses. As

described in chapter 1 of this thesis, Dwairy (2004) concluded from her confirmatory

factor analysis of 431 Palestinian-Arab participants‘ responses to the PAQ that the

three-factor model of parenting styles fit her data. Similarly, Chan and Chan (2007)

concluded that the three-factor model was confirmed in their confirmatory factor

analysis of the responses of 285 teacher education students from the University of

Hong Kong to the PAQ. In contrast, from confirmatory analyses of the responses of a

46

diverse sample of 150 Hispanic and Caucasian children Varela et al. (2004) concluded

that a two-factor model with the items from the permissive scale removed provided a

better fit to their data. The conflicting results in these three studies raise the question of

why the confirmatory factor analyses of the three-factor model of parenting for mother‘s

and father‘s in this study showed that that the model did not fit the data for either the

mother‘s or father‘s form of the PAQ. Possible explanations differences in the samples,

including ethnic and age differences. Dwairy‘s sample consisted of 431 Palestinian Arab

adolescents, and the sample of Varela et al. consisted of 450 Hispanic and Caucasian

children, ages 10 to 14, and their parents. The results of their confirmatory factor

analysis of ethnic subgroups are questionable given the small size of their samples. To

examine these possibilities, researchers should conduct confirmatory factor analyses

with data from other samples in which the items identified in this study as not

discriminating between factors are revised or omitted.

Although the three-factor model of parenting styles did not fit the college students‘

data on the PAQ items using confirmatory factor analyses of the students‘ perceptions

of their mothers‘ and father‘s parenting styles, I concluded from seven exploratory factor

analyses ranging from one factor to seven factors that the three-factor model yielded

the most interpretable factors. However, three items did not adequately discriminate

between the factors of Authoritative and Permissive Parenting. On the mother‘s form,

one item (Item 24—As I was growing up my mother allowed me to form my own point of

view on family matters and she generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was

going to do) did not discriminate adequately between Mother‘s Authoritative Parenting

(factor loading of .45) and Mother‘s Permissive Parenting (factor loading of .61). On the

47

father‘s form, one item (item 8—As I was growing up my father directed the activities

and decisions of the children in the family through reasoning and discipline) did not

adequately discriminate between the Father‘s Authoritarian Parenting (factor loading of

.46) and Father‘s Authoritative Parenting (factor loading of .45). Two items did not

adequately discriminate between Father‘s Authoritative Parenting and Permissive

Parenting: item 14, Most of the time as I was growing up my father did what the children

in the family wanted when making family decisions with factor loadings of .31 on

Authoritative Parenting and .43 on Permissive Parenting; and item 24, As I was growing

up my father allowed me to form my own point of view on family matters and he

generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going to do, with loadings of .45

on Authoritative Parenting and .46 on Permissive Parenting. These items (24 on the

mother‘s form and 8, 14, and 24 on the father‘s form) need to be omitted or revised to

allow better discrimination between factors. The results of the exploratory factor

analyses suggest that removing items from the factors may provide a more adequate

measure of parenting style.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. First, the majority of participants in the dataset

were White and female. Previous research suggests that males and females perceive

and report parenting styles differently. Therefore including data from both males and

females in a single factor analysis of parenting style can be misleading. In future

studies, separate factor analyses should be conducted for each gender to assess these

differences. Differences in perception may also occur on the basis of race.

Consequently, future factor analyses should examine whether participants‘ responses to

the items on the PAQ load differently for different genders and ethnicities.

48

Second, in this study adult children provided self-reports of their perceptions of

their parents‘ style of authority, which required them to recall experiences from their

childhood. These adult children‘s recall and overall impressions of their childhood may

have biased their responses to the items on the PAQ. Third, the format of the PAQ, a

Likert scale in which respondents indicate the extent to which their parents used

authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive styles, allows respondents to indicate that

their parents use more than one of the styles. Analyses that fail to take into account that

respondents may perceive their parents as using more than one style consistently may

lead to oversimplifications of parents‘ use of authority.

Recommendations. Considerable research suggests that parenting style is

related to important future behavior and outcomes. For example, Rothrauff, Cooney,

and An (2009), in a sample of 2, 232 adults age 40 and over, found that participants‘

perceptions of their parents‘ style of parenting was related to their psychological well-

being in later life. The adults who remembered their parents being authoritarian or

uninvolved reported lower scores on a psychological well-being scale and reported

more depressive symptoms later in life. Also, adults who remembered having

uninvolved parents were more likely to abuse substances. Similarly, Baldwin, McIntyre,

and Hardaway (2007) found that 63 college students who perceived their parents as

authoritative had higher levels of optimism than students who reported having

authoritarian parents. Although these are correlational studies and causal relationships

cannot be assumed, these studies suggest that examination of these relationships with

structural equation modeling might provide support for a causal relationship between

parenting style in childhood and psychological well-being in later life. In light of the need

49

to conduct further research on issues such as the relationship of parenting styles to

important future outcomes, I recommend continued research on the improvement of the

PAQ as a measure of the authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles.

The factor analyses conducted in this study suggest the following recommendations.

1. Items 24 on the mother‘s form and items 8, 14, and 24 on the father‘s form need to be omitted or revised to increase the discriminant validity of participants‘ responses to the items on the PAQ.

2. Research is needed to determine why the negative correlations between the factors of authoritarian and permissive parenting on the mother‘s and father‘s forms are only moderate, when conceptually these parenting styles are quite different from each other.

3. Because the factor loadings of respondents‘ scores on the PAQ may vary by gender and ethnicity, factor analytic research should be conducted to assess this possibility by examining the factor loadings of students‘ responses to the PAQ for samples that are limited to one gender and one ethnicity.

4. Researchers should explore ways to study the implications of the possibility that parents use more than one consistent style of parenting to deal with the differing situations that arise during socialization of their children.

Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the three-factor model on

which the PAQ was based was verified in a dataset of undergraduate college students

from the University of Florida. Confirmatory factor of analyses of participants‘ responses

to the mother‘s and father‘s forms of the PAQ indicated that the three-factor model of

authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles Buri (1991) intended to

measure with the PAQ did not have adequate fit to the data. However, results of seven

exploratory factor analyses with factors ranging from one to seven suggested that

increasing the number of factors beyond three did not yield interpretable factors. The

elimination of item 24 on the mother‘s form and items 8, 14, and 24 on the father‘s form

may result in a three-factor model that provides a better fit to the data in future samples,

50

which should be limited to one gender and ethnicity to eliminate the possibility that

differences in gender and ethnicity will influence the results of the factor analyses.

51

LIST OF REFERENCES

Baldwin, D. R., McIntyre, A., Hardaway, E. (2007). Perceived parenting styles on college students' optimism. College Student Journal, 41(3), 550–557. Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43–88. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology

Monograph, 1(2), 1–103. Buri, J. R. (1989). Self-esteem and appraisals of parental behavior. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 4(1), 33–49. Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment,

57(1), 110–119. Buri, J. R., Louiselle, P. A., Misukanis, T. M., & Mueller, R. A. (1988). Effects of parental authoritarianism and authoritativeness on self-esteem. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 14(2), 271-282. Buri, J. R., Misukanis, T. M., & Mueller, R. A. (1988). ―Nothing I ever do seems to

please my parents‖: Female and male self-esteem as a function of mother’s and father’s nurturance. St. Paul, MN: College of St. Thomas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED285114).

Chan, K., & Chan, S. (2007). Hong Kong teacher education students‘ goal orientations

and perceived parenting styles. Educational Psychology, 27(2), 157–172. Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style:

Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65(4), 1111–1119.

Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72(6), 1832– 1843. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative

dependence. New York, NY: Wiley. Dwairy, M. (2004). Parenting styles and mental health of Palestinian-Arab adolescents

in Israel. Transcultural Psychiatry, 41(2), 232–252. Fitts, W. (1965). Tennessee self-concept scale. Los Angeles, CA: Western

Psychological Services.

52

Garcia, F., & Gracia, E. (2009). Is always authoritative the optimum parenting style? Evidence from Spanish families. Adolescence, 44(173), 101–131. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. Julian, T. W., McKenry, P. C., & McKelvey, M. W. (1994). Cultural variations in

parenting: Perceptions of Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American parents. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 43(1), 30–37.

Milevsky, A., Schlechter, M., Netter, S., & Keehn, D. (2007). Maternal and paternal

parenting styles in adolescents: Associations with self-esteem, depression and life-satisfaction. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16(1), 39–47.

Muthén, M., & Muthén, L. K. (1998-2010). Mplus (Version 6.0). Los Angeles, CA:

Muthén & Muthén. Ribadeneira, A. (2006). Familial, individual, social-cognitive, and contextual predictors

of career decision self-efficacy: An ecological perspective Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, United States — Florida. Retrieved July 23, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses @ University of Florida - FCLA. (Publication No. AAT 3293968).

Rothrauff, T. C., Cooney, T. M., & An, J. S. (2009). Remembered parenting styles and adjustment in middle and late adulthood. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 64B(1), 137–146. Taylor, L. C., Hinton, I. D., & Wilson M. N. (1995). Parental influences on academic performance in African-American students. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 4(3), 293–302. Varela, R. E., Vernberg, E. M., Sanchez-Sosa, J. J., Riveros, A., Mitchell, M., &

Mashunkashey, J. (2004). Parenting style of Mexican, Mexican-American, and Caucasian-Non Hispanic families: Social context and cultural influences. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(4), 651–657.

53

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Michelle Toston Hill was born in 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. She moved with her

family to Jacksonville, Florida, where she was raised most of her life, attending local

magnet schools. Her father, Carl Toston Sr., was a social worker with Children and

Families Services and her mother, Vivian Toston, was an assistant manager at Scotty‘s

Hardware store. In 1998, she was accepted into the International Baccalaureate

program at Stanton College Preparatory School in Jacksonville Florida. She graduated

with college credit, the International Baccalaureate diploma, and a high school diploma

in 2002.

Michelle attended Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida, as an

undergraduate and earned the Bachelor of Science degree in psychology in 2005.

While at Florida State, Michelle was an undergraduate research assistant and teaching

assistant for the general psychology course offered to undergraduates. Her interests in

teaching at the university/college level led her to pursue the doctorate degree in

educational psychology.

In the summer of 2005, she was invited to participate in a program for minority

students, hosted by the Board of Education at the University of Florida in Gainesville,

Florida, which introduces students to and prepares students for Graduate School. She

was also offered a Presidential Fellowship from the College of Education at the

University of Florida, a fellowship that afforded her the opportunity to teach

undergraduate courses at the university.

During her graduate research career at the University, Michelle presented at

several conferences, including The Closing of the Achievement Gap through

Partnerships Conference, the 18th Annual National Youth at Risk Conference, the

54

American Institute of Higher Education‘s 5th International Conference, and the University

of Florida Graduate Student Council Interdisciplinary Conference.

Michelle‘s research interests include investigating factors that may influence

students‘ academic achievement (i.e., parenting styles, teaching styles, peer behaviors).

She is also interested in studying the benefits of using authoritative teaching practices

to increase student academic achievement and reduce the achievement gap.

In 2006, she married her high school sweetheart, Reverend Titus Wayne Hill II.

They currently reside in Jacksonville, Florida, where together they raise their two dogs,

Lana and Miles. Michelle received her Master of Arts in Education degree in educational

psychology in the summer of 2011. She plans to continue her education at the

University of Florida and receive her Doctorate degree in educational psychology.